Could get this if you're desperate for a release! :shocked:

Been wanting to see this ever since I saw the trailer for it a few months ago. Anybody know if the UK release will be uncut? It'll take a good long while before it gets released here in the states....if it does anyway.

The UK certificate has been rejected (ie banned) by the BBFC so the DVD won't be released.

Must be bad....:shocked:
Been a while since they did that eh?:fear:

Oh that really sucks! I was looking forward to getting it. I've heard that it was good too!

I can't remember the last time the UK banned a film. I guess I'll either get that German import or wait until the states release it. Still, it could be a long while!

Thanks for the update!

NF713 was the last one (April of this year).

ive just canceled my pre order:tsk:

According to BBFC director David Cooke - "Unlike other recent 'torture'-themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism. The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake."

Grotesque Banned
 

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/latest.htm#Grotesque_2633

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classi...7?OpenDocument


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352369/

And the official PR statement:

In a very rare instance, the British Board of Film Classification has refused to grant an 18 certificate to Japanese horror movie “Grotesque” due to the amount of unacceptable content featured throughout the film.

Set for distribution in the UK by 4Digital Asia, “Grotesque” concerns the abduction of a young couple by the film’s main protagonist, a psychotic sadist, who proceeds to restrain, strip and sexually assault his victims before torturing them to death.

The decision to ban the film was taken by BBFC director David Cooke and senior colleagues who claimed, “Unlike other recent ‘torture’ themed horror works, such as the ‘Saw’ and ‘Hostel’ series, ‘Grotesque’ features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism. In spite of a vestigial attempt to ‘explain’ the killer’s motivations at the very end of the film, the chief pleasure on offer in not related to understanding the motivations of any of the central characters. Rather, the chief pleasure on offer seems to be wallowing in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake.”

The last time a film was rejected by the BBFC was in April of this year when “NF713” (aka “Enemy Of The State”) was refused an 18 certificate. In February 2008 the film “Murder Set Pieces” was also rejected. Prior to that, the Board had not refused an 18 rating since 2005 when the film “Terrorists, Killers And Other Wackos”, a work made up of real clips of executions and torture, was turned down.

A spokesperson for 4Digital Asia expressed surprise at the outright rejection of the “Grotesque”, stating, “We knew that the BBFC was debating the content of the film quite intensely but we had expected to receive from the BBFC a list of recommended cuts enabling the film to be passed with an 18 certificate. We are now considering whether or not to appeal against the Board’s decision.”

Texas Vibrator Massacre was also banned in August of last year, though this was possibly rejected for an R18 rather than an 18.

An appeal is always possible though I personally wouldn't recommend it. At the very most the film would then be passed with very heavy cuts indeed, making the UK DVD pretty pointless. :ohwell:

It will be interesting to see if the film really wasn't cuttable as the BBFC claim.

The distributor would be wasting their time appealing. As the BBFC have said if the cuts are going be very extensive then issuing a certificate would be pointless.

It would be interesting to see how the film could be cut for an R because unlike the BBFC, the MPAA don't reject films (20m cut from the R rated Murder Set Pieces).

the film would make no sense if it was cut and im sure it would be about 30mins long :tsk:

Agreed, not only that, you're cutting half of the movie out as well! Leads me to wonder if this will be a new entry in the notorious video nasties list.

Having watched "Grotesque",it's no great loss to the UK horror scene that it's been banned.It's slightly boring and has a comedy ending which undercuts the relentless scenes of torture that make up the bulk of the film.As to the film being banned due to the killer/torturer gaining sexual pleasure from the pain he inflicts,you'd never know as he's stoney faced through out and looks like he's having a right old belly ache of a time.It's only when he tells his victims that their struggles turn him on that you know he's a bit of a perv.Even in the scenes of sexual assault his face remains a mask.Still, I guess it is a slight improvement over all the gurning that passes for acting in a lot of underground torture/horror films.

agree with you there. That ending made me laugh out loud :pound:

The actual list - No, as it's set in stone circa 1984.

The Wikipedia Video Nasties List - Yes, as anyone with a keyboard and a fascination with horror seems to add any movie that has had any mild controversy associated with it (along with Howard The Duck)

So the BBFC are still in the business of banning films. Seems the 'censor' tag still applies. I haven't seen it yet myself, so I can't pass comment. However, I personally think that its banning will only increase its notoriety and hence desirability. Probably many people who would naver have even heard of it, let alone bothered to see it, will now try and see it. Censorship always seems to have the opposite of the desired effect!

VERY well spoken- as everybody, who's been collecting "video nasties" (even the shitty ones) since the 80's will know by heart....:laugh:

They could have passed it if they felt it was worth doing so but with the cuts having to be so extensive it would have been pointless. Indeed people would have said with cuts like that they may as well have banned it.

Please don't take this as an attack on you, Angel, it's not - this is aimed squarely at the BBFC. They don't 'have' to cut anything. They choose to cut based on guidelines they've drawn up themselves, with minimal public consultation, in spite of their claims. Most people don't care if films are cut or not and few would ever bother to visit their website to fill out their questionnaires. I can understand that they perceive themselves as moral guardians, empowered by Government authority, and so feel a burden of responsibility. But to whom and why? I'm certainly glad that the BBFC are more relaxed these days - but please, don't forget that we were only about 30 years behind the rest of the world before this happened. It only took 3 decades or so to catch up, not bad (but it does make us seem like a morally bankrupt country where its people are not entrusted to handle controversial material in an adult fashion). And...wow...the BBFC suddenly realised people actually had sex and watching people having sex isn't evil (even if it is maybe a bit perverse).

As for violence begetting violence - I don't really buy that. Following in the wake of the VRA films were heavily cut, almost shorn of all violence completely. In the years that followed the legally available films became less violent due to heavy-handed censorship, yet violence in our society continued to escalate. So the correlation simply isn't there. In fact, most of us who grew up on video nasties are appalled at the violence committed amongst young people/adults these days, so it's not even as we're desensitised to violence either. So...you know...it's all psycho-babble bullshit.

As for the sexualised violence excuse (which is pathetic IMO), it just doesn't hold water. A man who gets turned on by seeing a woman hurt and humiliated doesn't need to have it presented in a sexualised context, I wouldn't have thought. He'd be just as aroused watching a woman getting a back-hander in Eastenders, which is far from sexualised. What I'm trying to say is that if your kicks are from seeing women (or men) physically abused, a sexual context isn't needed. All that is needed is the presentation of violence by a man to a woman (or whatever your bag is). So how do you monitor that? Do you censor everything? And who are you protecting? I don't need protecting, because I doubt I'll ever be beaten by someone for sexual gratification. So what are the BBFC saying? That films with a perceived sexual violence quotient may act as a stimulus; a trigger to latent rapists or whatever? But, as outlined above, if that's the case - an episode of Eastenders could just as easily act as a trigger. Couldn't it? Just how powerful do they think film is? That it can actually trigger latent tendencies in a person or heighten them? I'm curious, I'd like to know exactly what threat these films pose to society at large. Am I, personally, going to find myself in more danger because Grotesque came out on DVD in the UK? Some perspective is needed, I reckon, and I'd like to know the rationale behind the BBFC's thinking. How do the examiners themselves know it won't trigger latent tendencies in them? After all, if it's latent, you're not consciously aware of it. What makes them immune to this 'danger of harm'? And exactly how does it trigger these tendencies? Who is in danger? Who will be harmed by these films? Some explanation is needed - and one that's grounded in fact.

well said :)

The BBFC also has the OPA to contend with. This has the potential to cause even more problems than the VRA these days. If the BBFC passed material that contravened the government's 1977 act amendment then they run the risk of prosecution themselves.

I wonder what the German & Australian censors will make of it?

The OPA isn't so much a problem as the Dangerous Pictures Act. Under the OPA nothing can actually be legally classed as obscene unless a jury in a court of law deems it obscene. And only then that it will offend its intended audience. That's how it's supposed to work anyway. Technically, the DPP's list was only a list of prosecutable titles - only a handful were actually classed as contravening the OPA in a court of law, in their uncut form at least. The DPA on the other hand almost gives the license to brand something as obscene without ever seeing the inside of a court room. Therefore it's probably the ridiculous DPA that will cause more headaches these days.

A question, though - I'm to understand that the BBFC keep a copy of all submitted material on file. Aren't they technically, then, in possession of illegal material, if it does indeed breach the law? They sure have the powers of the gods there at the BBFC, don't they? Watch everything uncut then tell us what we can and can't watch. It's a ridiculous state of affairs. What kind of totalitarian regime are we living under? I'm glad the BBFC have moved with the times - but I can't help feeling insulted when they decide that something I might view will actually cause me harm or make me a danger to society. Why? Because I don't move amongst 'polite society' and too uneducated to able to properly digest and distinguish what I see on screen? It's ****ing bollocks. Let me judge for myself. By all means classify and restrict viewership to the proper age groups - but to outlaw something completely because it might trigger a sex offender is ridiculous. Show me concrete evidence that genre films do this and I'll listen. Until then, they're talking out of their arses. I've seen many nutters over the years claiming 'God told me to' and yet I see no blanket censorship of religion - why? If religion triggers religious mania, why not ban that too?

When it comes to the subject of films influencing people I do agree that no concrete evidence has ever materialised proving this, and I also feel that very often certain elements of the media use this as an excuse without any proof whatsoever.

To my knowledge they keep documentation of the film (in essay/list form) rather than a copy of the film itself. Very often they don't know if a film that has been cut or rejected in the past will pass intact today until it's been resubmitted to them.

Do you feel as equally strongly about the MPAA?

Oh yes. It's because of the MPAA that many films only exist in heavily cut form - like the Friday the 13th films. It's become a lot worse since the Studios took control of the cinema chains too. Yes, there's the unrated option in the age of DVD - but back in the day, a gory horror had to be trimmed or get an NC17 (commercial suicide as many cinemas won't show NC17 films) or go unrated and try and get someone to actually screen it.

The MPAA are the real reason we still can't see many of the F13 as intended - they were either trimmed by the MPAA or pre-cut by nervous stuidios dreading the NC17 rating.

So yes, I feel as strongly about the MPAA.

Unlike the MPAA the BBFC had no problems passing the unrated versions of Friday The 13th, House III, Candyman and A Nightmare On Elm Street.

Exactly. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a system of classification and restricting viewing to certain age groups. If parents are irresponsible, that's not my problem. I don't think there's a cure for stupidity. If it triggers latent psychosis in someone, again, not my problem (not that I particularly believe it does). I don't agree that my freedoms should be curtailed because it might harm someone else. Knives are useful kitchen implements - but sick people turn them into instruments of aggression. Should we ban kitchen knives because someone might misuse them? Why not apply the BBFC's arguments to everything. Why single out one strand when there are plenty of others to also choose from?

I'm aware that there have been times when the BBFC have been far more lenient than the MPAA. On the other hand, why are people settling for this sytem whereby a few people can decide whether you can see something or not? No-one asked me if I agree with it - so therefore I'll take no notice of it. :)

But let's not also forget that the MPAA-approved versions of Candyman and A Nightmare on Elm Street are what we've been served up on DVD. Guess it was just easier to use the R-rated digital master worldwide - which probably means we'll never see them uncut again in this glorious digital age. :mad2:

I have a feeling that the BBFC don't actually believe that a film will make somebody commit a crime directly from watching a film but certain images in a film could be seen as normalising deviant behaviour to those who are disposed to such behaviour,so if you are a rapist, then repeated scenes of rape in a film that shows no consequences for the crime could normalise rape.In "Grotesque" the female victim and male victim are both masturbated to orgasm by the killer thus implying that sexual assult is a pleasurable experience.As dvd can be replayed and edited at home,I'm guessing that the BBFC are concerned such scenes can be taken out of context and used to fuel fantasy which in a very few people becomes reality.

Thankfully Lionsgate did the opposite with My Bloody Valentine (at last!). :coolblue:

Paramount should have followed suit and reinstated the footage from the Friday films.:(:tsk:

I get all that. But then apply the same to all media. In some genre books I've read there is often graphic depictions of sexual assault, graphically describing the feelings and emotions of both victim and perpetrator. Or in Gangsta rap where women are often referred to in demeaning terms and also in much stronger terms. If you're going to apply this rule of possible harm, then apply it to everything, why only to visual media?

I'm surprised that to date there's been no UK release of the restored My Bloody Valentine.

At least we have the unrated prints of Return Of The Living Dead 3 and House III (via Hollywood DVD) on disc. The former also never had a BBFC problem (even with Ferman).

Totally agree with you there D.It is odd that only film suffers this way,though I do remember a few years ago the fourth issue of "Answer Me!,the Journal of Hate" was seized when imported into the UK, it was a satirical look at violence towards women.That said the main writer in the journal ended up doing time for assulting his wife,so perhaps not the best example to give!Interestingly when he published a book defending his actions it was not seized/banned in the UK.

The BBFC have to classify in accordance with UK law when making their decisions so that means a work that may fall foul of the OPA is likely to be cut or rejected. The BBF take their advice from the Obscene Publications Unit and also various leading QC's as to whether a work is likely to be found obscene by a court of law. The BBFC are not above the law, if they were to pass obscene material they could find themselves being prosecuted and also the dealers as well.

Personally I find the OPA more disturbing than the DPA. Films that are classified under the VRA are exempt from the DPA. Not the case with the OPA. In any case (and personally speaking) the DPA which applies to extreme pornographic work has no bearing on anything I watch. It is the stuff the BBFC already cut from R18's.

There is a great deal of work the BBFC are legally obliged to cut involving various legislation.

I think it is the cutting of sexual violence that always gets discussed the most and after all it is (almost) the only reason a film would be rejected today. This is what the BBFC had to say: "The BBFC operates on the precautionary presumption that particular violent scenes, with the potential to cause sexual arrousal, may encourage a harmful association between violence and sexual gratification".

In making these decisions "the BBFC often consults or carries out research involving experts in Psychology, Psychiatry, Law and Pornography".

And of course the VRA also requires the BBFC to intervene when there is a potential for harm to the viewer.

Now of course fortunately, the truth is the BBFC rarely ever cut scenes of sexual violence, the vast majority gets through without any problems, it's only really a tiny fraction that ends up getting cut.

Just a few things puzzle me...

1.. Films ppl have a choice of what they want to watch and if they want to watch it....if you had a dvd that u think wasnt suitable for minors or your kids then you keep it out the way...and if you didnt like it you wouldnt watch it again... you can avoid watching a film if you dont fancy it ...BUT there isnt much said about ganster, rap etc style of music that causes ppl to go round shooting and acting like ganster..after all the tone and sometimes language in these songs can be appaling because a lot do sing about killing shooting ppl etc BUT the difference this time is if you dont like these songs you cant avoid them.. you hear them on the radio in shops at work etc etc etc...

2 If some off these films are so bad then how come the ppl who censor them havent been affected by these films? after all some one must have seen loads of violence killings gore etc etc ...but have nvr gone on to harm any 1 are they trying to say they are more immune than you average person

They are no more immune then we are.

They probably have.

Probably.. but not in the sense they watched a film and gone out and done something to somebody because of what they just watched, because after all they do state that films are the cause of a lot of violence and not much say about music causing it..personaly i think rap ganster etc etc causes more than films these days hence going back to my 1st statement about avoiding films if you want but cant avoid music you hear it every where..